Another World Discussion Thread

[Mona Kane Croft]

I enjoy humor on soaps, but not comedy.  And the humor needs to come from characters, not situations.  For example, I enjoyed the humor characters like Vivian, Louise Goddard, Lahoma, and occasionally even Ada and Iris brought to the show. Because it was character driven. None of them were put in particularly funny situations, they just occasionally said humorous things.  The humor Agnes Nixon brought to All My Children was character driven.  Her humorous characters didn't need to be put in unlikely funny situations, they were just humorous people -- at least when Nixon was writing.  And occasionally even Nixon took the humor too far.  I don't like zany comedy on soaps.  It takes me out of the drama.  Soaps should make the audience cry, not laugh -- at least that's my opinion.  I find zany comedy on soap operas to be undignified and embarrassing to watch.   I realize other fans disagree, and that's okay with me.  

But more important than anyone's opinion is the ratings.  And the ratings usually speak for themselves.

My real point in my original post about getting earlier and later characters together was not to knock any of them.  But I've always been intrigued that many of the early characters just don't seem to live in the same universe as the newer ones.  And many times I just cannot imagine them in the same scene together.  John Randolph and Wallingford for example.  I just can't imagine trying to write that scene.  

Edited March 10, 2024 by Mona Kane Croft

[Sapounopera]

ICAM

[Contessa Donatella]

Heaven forbid that I do so!!! Not my intention, not at all. I personally find soaps to be excellent at challenging us about our attitudes & philosophies & enjoy discussions, but I will absolutely cease & desist. The drama needs to stay on the screen. 

[vetsoapfan]

Donna was expressing the modern ideal that men should never hit women under any circumstance. Elements of society did not always share that opinion, however. Societal attitudes once dictated that men were the heads of the household and needed to be obeyed.

It's curious to me that on social media nowadays...

--Viewers often cheer when female heroines bitch-slap their antagonists. (Think Krystle and Alexis in the lily pond as only one example.)

--Fans also cheer when male heroes open up a fresh can of whup-a$$ and go postal on vexatious men. (Think Jack Reacher and all the scum he serves justice to on a regular basis.)

--I've even seen foot stomping and enthusiastic applauding (or worse, excuses and justifications) when aggressive women assault men, even those who are not DOING anything to the women in question.

I'm not sure why Russ spanking Rachel 50+ years ago would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I made it clear that I did not think it was justified, just that as a human being, Russ was driven over the edge and temporarily lost control. Was he right? No. Was it understandable in the heat of the moment? That's debatable, but I can testify that many members of the audience, including women,  were just waiting for Rachel to get her comeuppance.

I'm merely pointing out that life and  soaps (back in the day when the writing for daytime TV was layered and adult) are not black and white. If viewers can forgive mobsters, kidnappers, rapists and murderers, and even accept them romancing and marrying their victims...well, you get my drift.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2024 by vetsoapfan

[vetsoapfan]

I generally have no issue with people expressing their opinions, even when they diametrically oppose my own. 

Yes, it is shocking today to hear someone say, "She deserves it," but it all depends on the circumstances involved. I saw a viral video on Youtube years ago, about an aggressive woman on the subway harassing and harassing and HARASSING a man for the "crime" of wearing a jacket she thought looked stupid. He walked away, she followed him. She took a swing at another passenger filming her atrocious behavior. Finally, she whacked her victim across the back of his head with a pair of heavy shoes she was carrying, drawing blood. He turned around and smacked her, sending her flying backwards. The usual response of "Men should never hit women no matter what" followed, but so did many statements of support for the man's acting in self defense.

Everything depends on the overall context involved.

I was honestly less offended by Russ spanking Rachel after what she did, than I was to see Todd Manning (OLTL) and Luke Spencer (GH) rape women, and ultimately be forgiven for their crimes and turned into romantic leads.

Russ' actions were never condoned.

[Contessa Donatella]

Yet there are some fans who eschew this entirely as an enjoyment. Personally I have never been a fan of catfights, slaps, etc. with one exception & that is the catfight I consider to be the best ever in any soap. Written by Michele Val Jean, it is the iconic fight in GENERATIONS where the two women almost destroy an apartment. 

It wasn't. There was no straw, no camel, nor its back. It stood alone as an example where a good man physically assaulted his wife & the gentle reader in question summed up by saying she deserved it. 

In the statement that I questioned, because I wanted to know how you truly felt about it, you said something to the effect of her deserving it, not what you're saying in this paragraph here above. 

And, there is a large body of soap fandom that in fact is entirely opposed to, for just one example, rape victims EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES to fall in love with or marry their rapists.

But I do agree that life & soaps are not either black or white. Much is gray & that actually is to the good. 

And, I thought I had said what I was going to say about this, but then this reply came along & I felt clarification was badly needed. 

Me either. 

I personally believe that context is everything. 

Of course, because we occupy a space of situational ethics, degrees matter. A spanking when compared with a a rape does not equate. We know which is worse. There is no question. And, Todd was never forgiven. And, Luke was forgiven by some but not by most. For example, I am one of many who contend that Luke & Laura are not & cannot be iconic as a couple because it began with rape. To make Luke the romantic lead they were after Gloria Monty offered up a bald faced lie which both the HW & the Assoc HW disagreed with, violently. And, in fact that lie haunted the show & the couple for decades until it was revisited in a story written by Michele Val Jean. As of this past winter Genie Francis has gone on record about that lie & that she will never support the lie but instead will insist on the truth which is that Luke violently raped Laura. Not a seduction!

Now, see, if this simple statement had been the answer to my genuine question, then, that would have been the end of the conversation. 

[Matt]

You know these aren't real people, right?

[Contessa Donatella]

Thanks for your reply. I understand & respect the distinction you are making. Further, I would respect your opinion, no matter what. I very much appreciate your enjoyment of humor from Vivian & Ada & others. 

Me, I am also an aficionado of zany comedy & hijinks. On AW that meant Cass & Felicia & Wally and also Krystal with a K Lake & Tony the Tuna. On AMC that meant jokes & gags about Opal's Glamorama & Tad in a chicken suit, etc. I dnn't mind one whit that you don't care for that stuff. Totally okay choice if you ask me.

Actually, I do not believe that ratings reflect either quality or popularity. I could go on about that but it's not really germane here. 

Is this to me? If so, I am totally cognizant that they are instead reel people. 

And I also believe in suspension of disbelief. 

Does that somehow negate values? 

[vetsoapfan]

There are people who both love and despise many forms of content, but there's no denying the number of people who revel in watching their favorite catfights, and enjoy seeing the villains they hate getting their butts whupped.

There you go: the context of that scene made you appreciate it, just like the context of other scenes made different viewers appreciate those scenes and have their own reactions to them.

And your Generations reference was an example of two women physically assaulting each other, and you summing it up by saying you were a fan of it.

Please register in order to view this content

Complex questions of morality may be a challenge to understand, but one can acknowledge physical violence is wrong, while still acknowledging that if you goad and goad and goad someone far enough, they very well may react in a way you deem unacceptable. Meta Bauer on TGL may have been wrong to shoot her husband Ted White after her son Chuckie died, but viewers understood very well why she was driven to it.

And yet, vocal 'shippers in the audience continue to sing out praises for the most degenerate criminal men of the genre.

Edited March 10, 2024 by vetsoapfan

[Contessa Donatella]

If somehow people think I am woefully out of step with soaps & soap fans, I would only say that Disney handed down a No Rapist Redeemed Edict. So, there went Franco, arguably one of the most successful rape redemption examples ever. They killed him off. Snap. Just like that. And, I happen to think it was a good thing for them to do. Surely we know that soaps have an horrific reputation, for cause, about rape & violence against women. 

And, a favorite quote: 

"For me context is the key - from that comes the understanding of everything." - Kenneth Noland

Edited March 10, 2024 by Contessa Donatella

[vetsoapfan]

Please register in order to view this content

What viewers feel about fictional characters and their scripted situations does not automatically correlate to how they would feel about or judge real-life situations.

[Contessa Donatella]

But, today, more & more people speak up about it & against it. 

Some viewers apply the same values, philosophies & beliefs to reel as to real. Also some PTB.

Donna Swajeski insisted that Jake would never have raped Marley. She fought NBC telling her she had to write him raping her. She lost that battle. But, she decided at that moment that she was quitting at the end of her contract - and she did. 

Pat Falken Smith disagreed with Bill Bell, Sr. about Laura marrying Bill after he raped her. 

Doug Marland disagreed with Gloria Monty about calling Luke's rape of Laura a seduction & he quit over it. Pat Falken Smith also disagreed but she was a single parent & didn't feel she could lose the job so she stayed on & basically lived with a lie. 

NBC told their soaps for years that violence against women raised ratings. 

[TVFAN1144]

How was Jim Mathew’s exit handled?   Did Hugh Marlowe play him until his death?   

[Mona Kane Croft]

Jim was said to be on a cruise to Finland or someplace in northern Europe.  The character died there and was brought back to Bay City for burial.  There was no onscreen funeral.  If I am not mistaken, Alice was the only one of his three children to attend the offscreen funeral.  Liz was still in town are well.  I'm not sure if Marianne Randolph Halloway was still on the canvas.  But the Matthews family was extremely small at that point. And not one former character returned for his service.   Sad that Jim and Hugh Marlowe got no real send off.  

Thanks, Countessa.  It's nice to have an intelligent and civil conversation about an issue we don't agree on.  I appreciate that very much.  Sometimes I feel I have to walk on egg shells in order to avoid offending some of these posters,   But I do it, just to keep the peace.   I'm glad you do not require such tender treatment.   

 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Mona Kane Croft

[Contessa Donatella]

Oh, yeah, it's nice here that we can jostle around a bit, play, possibly even at times be a little outrageous because it's like we're safe here, on home base.